Limnology and Oceanography Letters 2020© 2020 The Author. Limnology and Oceanography published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

on behalf of Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography.doi: 10.1002/lol2.10165

ESSAY

Simple rules for concise scientific writing

Scott Hotaling *School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington

Scientific Significance Statement

One of the most common editorial refrains, regardless of discipline, is “this needs to be tighter.” It typically means too many wordsand ideas are jumbled together and the underlying point is obscure. The writing is not concise. But, improving conciseness is diffi-cult because the problem is caused by a host of factors that are easily overlooked, especially by early career researchers. Here, Idescribe what it means to write concisely and outline 10 rules, with examples, to help scientists tighten their prose.

“I am writing a longer letter than usual because there is not enoughtime to write a short one.”

Blaise Pascal, Lettres Provinciales (ca. 1657)

For many scientists, writing clear and concise manuscriptsis a major hurdle to professional success. This overarchingchallenge can be split into two issues: writing initial draftsand effective revision. Both require considerable investmentsof time and energy; yet, even with endless supplies of both,making it to the “end” can be difficult, because the “end” isundefined. it is a “you know it when you see it” point thatrequires considerable experience to identify. Getting to thatendpoint—a clear and concise finished work—is often particu-larly difficult for early career researchers.

This essay’s motivation stems from a common editorialrefrain: “this needs to be tighter.” I have given and received thisadvice dozens of times. I can also attest to how vague it can feelwhen received, and how desirable specific steps to remedy theissue would be. Ultimately, your reader is telling you to be moreconcise. They want you to give the same information in fewer

words. By spending the necessary time to craft your manuscriptwith conciseness in mind, you will build goodwill with youraudience. However, before getting to the rules below, a note ofcaution: it is important not to take your pursuit of concisenesstoo far. It is easy to condense into unclarity. By cutting toomany words and losing key information, you will create oneproblem while fixing another. The key is to tighten your writingwhile keeping the core ideas intact.

Below, I provide a practical guide to writing more concisescientific manuscripts structured as 10 rules that range frombig picture, philosophical ideas to specific, practical concepts.Like any good rule, most can be broken under the right cir-cumstances, so I encourage the reader to treat them more asguidelines than laws. However, I have book-ended the essaywith two rules that should not be broken. To succeed in writ-ing concisely you must take writing seriously (Rule 1) andembrace feedback (Rule 10). Finally, I must acknowledge theinherent irony that the published version of this essay willrepresent. Like every bit of writing that has or ever will be dra-fted, this essay could be more concise. This is unavoidable.Writing concisely is not a binary of success or failure. Rather,it is a question of degree. You should strive to do it well whilerecognizing that you must eventually stop somewhere.

Rules for concise scientific writingRule 1: Take writing seriously

Conciseness alone does not ensure good scientific writing.However, good science writing that is not concise is rare

*Correspondence: scott.hotaling@wsu.edu

Scott Hotaling is an ASLO Raelyn Cole Editorial Fellow

Author Contributions Statement: S.H. wrote the essay.

Data Availability Statement: Data sharing is not applicable to thisarticle as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Associate editor: Carla Cáceres

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction inany medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5965-0986mailto:scott.hotaling@wsu.eduhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1002%2Flol2.10165&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-06-13

(or non-existent), so pursuing conciseness as part of a largerstrategy to write effectively is worthwhile. In his guide to sci-entific writing, Joshua Schimel makes a key point for scien-tists: “you are a professional writer” (Schimel 2012). Thus, youmust take your writing seriously. For me, this means writingalmost every day, learning as much as I can about the processby talking with and reading writers I admire, and activelyseeking feedback on my work. While much has been writtenabout increasing writing productivity and effectiveness(e.g., Filstrup 2019; Strunk 2007; Schimel 2012;Hotaling 2018), less attention has been devoted to advisingwriters on issues of clarity and conciseness (but see Gopenand Swan 1990, Williams and Bizup 2016). From emails tomanuscripts, the ability to make points clearly and efficientlyis perhaps the most important writing skill you can develop.However, if you think you will always nail it on the firstattempt, you will be mistaken. Before you can write well, youmust get comfortable receiving feedback and revising yourwork (see Rule 10). Great writing blooms from great revision,and great revision starts with listening to feedback. But it allbegins and ends with putting time and effort into yourwriting.

Rule 2: Identify and stick to your messageAs early in the writing process as possible, you should iden-

tify your message. What is your paper’s goal? Can you sum-marize the key points in a few sentences? I often addsummary sentences to the top of my working document so Isee them often. Others like to write the Abstract before any-thing else. Regardless, once your guide is set, every paragraphand sentence should flow from that overarching roadmap. Inother words, you must stick to your message. Many scientistsfind success laying out manuscripts with the ABT (And, But,Therefore) method where main points are linked with an“and”, conflict or why this matters is introduced with a “but”,and things are tied together with a “therefore” (Olson 2015).The ABT template is well-suited to drafting the summarysentence(s) described above.

For Introductions and Discussions, I take my approach astep further. I write each paragraph’s focal point in a sentenceor less above it and I draft the paragraph with this goal inmind. This process keeps my thoughts on track and limits theinevitable text expansion that comes with directionless writ-ing. Later, when revising, I ask modified versions of my earlierquestion for each section, paragraph, sentence, and word:does it advance the story? Is it adding value? If the answer(s)are anything other than yes, I either edit to be clearer orremove the offending text altogether. As Kurt Vonnegut putit, I try to “have the guts to cut” (Vonnegut 1980).

It is also important that your manuscripts and even indi-vidual sentences not read like mysteries. Your reader isexperiencing your thoughts for the first time. They cannotpredict where you are going. And, even if they can, makingthem try distracts from their most important job: reading and

considering what you wrote. Give the reader an early roadmapso everything you lay out fits the picture they already have inmind. By connecting each part of your paper to a larger, over-arching message, you will build one of the world’s most pow-erful communication tools: narrative.

Rule 3: Get to the pointYou and your audience have a mutual goal: transferring

information as efficiently as possible. Long-winded setups,extra details, and irrelevant tangents undermine that goal. Atbest, they waste the reader’s time. At worst, they confuse orcause them to stop reading. As you write, a little voice in yourhead should be reminding you to get to your point as effi-ciently as possible for everyone’s sake.

Rule 4: Keep your Methods and Results containedText that should be in the Methods and Results has a way

of creeping into other parts of a paper. At times, this is alright;you may want to contextualize what you are discussing. But,too often, early drafts (and often published papers!) will re-hash these details where they do not belong. You should readand re-read your manuscripts with an eye towards movinganything better suited to the Methods or Results to those sec-tions. If you find the information is already there, it is time todelete it. Similarly, there is also no need to rehash a study’sbroader goals in the Methods or Results; manuscript framingbelongs elsewhere. One note of caution: this rule assumes astandard Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussionstructure. Some journals include the Results before theMethods. If this is the case, you will likely need to give somemethodological context to each result as you go. That is okay.

Rule 5: Do not repeat yourself (too often)Redundancy is the bane of conciseness and repetitive

papers come across as lazy. Of course, there are places(e.g., Conclusions) where reiteration can guide the reader to abigger message. But in general, once you state something, itonly needs to be repeated to add key information(e.g., differentiating between two approaches when describingresults). It is also unnecessary to repeat content in figures andtables elsewhere in the manuscript. For example, if you pro-vided an overview of the study area in Figure 1, there is noneed to spend precious text describing where your study sitesare in relation to each other. The same is true for tables. Onceinformation is in a table, you should only refer to specificdetails (e.g., a study group and statistical value) in the textbefore referencing your table.

Rule 6: Avoid unnecessary or inefficient “lead-ins”When writing a scientific article, unnecessary “lead-ins”

undermine brevity. If you are unclear what I mean by anunnecessary “lead-in,” re-read the first sentence of this sec-tion. Do I need “when writing a scientific article” to set upthe sentence? I do not. The sentence should begin with“unnecessary” and with that simple edit, its length dropsfrom nine to four words. Similar pointless setups are pervasive

Hotaling Rules for concise scientific writing

2

and over an entire manuscript—perhaps totaling 8,000words—their net effect can be hundreds, even thousands, ofextra words. By learning to recognize and avoid them, youwill tighten your writing and make your readers happier (seeexamples in Box 1).

Rule 7: Use first-person, active voiceFirst-person, active voice is generally tighter and, in my

view, more interesting as it allows the writer to describe theactions they performed from their perspective. We collected thedata this way. I argue this point. Our finding is interesting for thisreason. First-person, active voice puts key subjects and actionsat the beginning of the sentence which helps you get to thepoint quickly and avoid inefficient sentences (see Box 1). Itshould be noted, however, that situations may arise thatrequire passive voice. For instance, if the author(s) did not col-lect the data being referred to, then referencing its collectionpassively (i.e., “Samples were collected…”) is appropriate.

Rule 8: Remove unnecessary words“The road to hell is paved with adverbs.”

Stephen King, On Writing: A Memoir of theCraft (2000)

Two types of “filler” sneak into sentences: extra words orphrases that can be removed with no effect on the messageand phrases that can be condensed from several words to oneor two. Sentence filler generally consists of three featuresbeing overused: (1) qualifiers, (2) prepositional phrases, and

(3) transitions. However, they are not mutually exclusive andoften co-occur.

(1) Qualifiers are usually adverbs that modify or enhanceother words in a sentence (e.g., quickly, extremely, fre-quently). They often add nothing and can be removed.(2) Extraneous prepositional phrases (e.g., in this case, amongother writers, on the other hand, for the most part) or similarmulti-word setups can make sentences feel jumbled andunclear. While it may be hard to cut a phrase entirely, look toreplace multi-word phrases with single words. Switching frompassive to active voice (see Rule 7) can also help reduceoveruse of prepositional phrases. (3) Transitions—words thatlink one sentence to the next (e.g., however, meanwhile,thus)—can be important, but odds are you include more thanyou need. Work to remove extraneous transitions and, if pos-sible, combine sentences. See Box 2 for examples of commonfiller.

Rule 9: Simplify your language"Use the smallest word that does the job.”

E.B. White

You do not need complicated words and clever phrasing towrite well. They take up space, waste time, and may causeyour message to be misinterpreted. Stephen King cautionsagainst being so taken with a certain word or phrase that youstick with it despite issues (King 2000). As you revise to reduceyour word count, you should also try to reduce your manu-script’s syllable count by using shorter words wherever

Box 1. Avoid unnecessary of inefficient “lead-ins.”

Hotaling Rules for concise scientific writing

3

possible (e.g., replacing “utilize” with “use”; see Box 3 forcommon examples).

Rule 10: Seek and embrace feedback“I believe more in the scissors than I do in the pencil.”

Truman Capote

Diagnosing editorial issues in your own writing is difficult.Thus, good feedback is as important as the writing itself. Fromthe perspective of conciseness, for instance, it is hard to seealternative, tighter ways to phrase something, to notice whenyou are repeating yourself, or to identify places where yournarrative has strayed from the overarching goal. While all edi-torial feedback will not be focused on conciseness, plenty will.You can also direct those giving you feedback to focus on

certain components of your manuscript. If I am workingunder a word limit, I will remind readers that the paper needsto be a specific length and to please look for areas where itcan be condensed, whether through rephrasing or removingentire portions.

Helpful editorial input will not happen magically, however,even with the right co-author, peer, or supervisor. It startswith you—the writer—and the feedback environment youconstruct. Are you overconfident and quick to ignore people’sinput? Do you take feedback seriously? Are you kind to thosegiving you feedback (especially those that are well-intentionedbut critical)? While difficult to hear, having a friend orreviewer let you know when something is not ready for publi-cation due to major flaws will save you considerable troublein the long run.

Box 2. Remove unnecessary words.

Box 3. Simplify your language. Box 4. Simple rules for concise scientific writing.

Hotaling Rules for concise scientific writing

4

To get the most out of the feedback process, I have threerecommendations. First, take the plunge and send your workto people who you can trust to be critical when warranted.While a pat on the back or “Looks great!” message may feelgood in the short-term, a lack of critical feedback before sub-mission or publication is a recipe for disaster. Second, takefeedback graciously. You are asking someone to do somethingdifficult—to spend their time reading your work and tellingyou how they think it could be improved. This is no smallfeat. People are busy and do not want to hurt your feelings,especially when you are their peer or mentee. Third, take feed-back seriously. Many writers, and particularly those early intheir career, cannot properly assess their own writing andtend to be overconfident. Or, they are at least unaware of theeffort required to produce high-quality work. So, it is impor-tant to be humble when taking criticism. Disagreements aboutwording or style are common. They are what make writingmore art than science. But, to dismiss someone’s feedback out-right, or to assume you know best, undermines the process,weakens your writing, and wastes everyone’s time.

For many, the idea of being overconfident in their writingability is unimaginable. If you are in that group, you likelyexperience a lot of anxiety about writing, especially when itcomes to receiving feedback. If that is true, remember that thefeedback you receive only applies to your writing. It has noth-ing to do with you as a person. It may help you to rememberthe bigger message your critics are giving you when they pro-vide feedback; they believe in you and your writing enough tospend their limited time helping you improve. If they thoughtyou could not do it, they would not waste their time.

However, if you lack confidence, be careful not to blindlyaccept comments or edits as absolute truth. Consider eachone carefully, ask for clarification when needed, and trustyour own intuition when you are not sure about something.If a problem is noted, your critic is likely correct that some-thing is amiss where they specified. However, they may notnecessarily be right about how to fix it.

ConclusionIn this essay, I described 10 rules for concise scientific writ-

ing (summarized in Box 4). This list is neither exhaustive norabsolute. Rather, it stems from my own experiences in acade-mia and the feedback I have given or received on everything

from emails to manuscripts. No matter where your careertakes you, being able to write clear, concise prose will serveyou well.

Conflict of interestThe author has no conflicts of interest.

ReferencesFilstrup, C. T. 2019. How to be a better scientist. Limnol.

Oceanogr. Bull. 28: 38–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/lob.10298

Gopen, G. D., and J. A. Swan. 1990. The science of scientificwriting. Am. Sci. 78: 550–558.

Hotaling, S. 2018. Publishing papers while keeping everythingin balance: Practical advice for a productive graduateschool experience. Ideas Ecol. Evol. 11: 35–46. https://doi.org/10.4033/iee.2018.11.5.f

King, S. 2000, On writing: A memoir of the craft. Scribner.Olson, R. 2015, Houston, we have a narrative: Why science needs

story. Univ. of Chicago Press.Schimel, J. 2012, Writing science: How to write papers that get

cited and proposals that get funded. USA: OUP.Strunk, W. 2007, The elements of style. Penguin.Vonnegut, K. 1980, How to write with style. International Paper

Company.Williams, J., and J. Bizup. 2016, Style: Lessons in clarity and

grace, 12th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

AcknowledgmentsI thank Jim Cloern, Dave Crowder, Lynn Hotaling, Enrique Kratzer, KerryMcGowan, Kelsey Poulson-Ellestad, Patricia Soranno, and three anon-ymous reviewers for comments that improved this essay. I would also liketo acknowledge many co-authors, reviewers, and mentors, particularlyDeb Finn, Joanna Kelley, and David Weisrock, for emphasizing the powerof brevity and helping me improve my writing throughout my career. Inaddition to the ASLO Raelyn Cole Editorial Fellowship, this work wassupported by NSF award #OPP-1906015.

Submitted 03 February 2020

Revised 04 May 2020

Accepted 29 May 2020

Hotaling Rules for concise scientific writing

5

https://doi.org/10.1002/lob.10298https://doi.org/10.1002/lob.10298https://doi.org/10.4033/iee.2018.11.5.fhttps://doi.org/10.4033/iee.2018.11.5.f

Simple rules for concise scientific writingRules for concise scientific writingRule 1: Take writing seriouslyRule 2: Identify and stick to your messageRule 3: Get to the pointRule 4: Keep your Methods and Results containedRule 5: Do not repeat yourself (too often)Rule 6: Avoid unnecessary or inefficient ``lead-ins´´Rule 7: Use first-person, active voiceRule 8: Remove unnecessary wordsRule 9: Simplify your languageRule 10: Seek and embrace feedback

ConclusionConflict of interestReferencesAcknowledgments